Germain v. Dryden (City), 2012 HRTO 285

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Andrea Germain

Applicant

-and-

City Of Dryden DMTS and Jodi Langlais

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: February 9, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 285

Indexed as: Germain v. Dryden (City)

1This Application was filed on October 24, 2011 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. The Application alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of disability. This Decision addresses the issue of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction in this matter given that the corporate respondent, the Municipal Corporation of the Town of Dryden, Dryden Municipal Telephone System (“DMTS”) may be a federally regulated business or service.

2The applicant identifies in his Application that he was a member of the Power Workers Union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1000 (the “Union”). Accordingly, a copy of his Application was sent to the Union as well as the respondents.

3On January 5, 2012 the Union wrote to the Tribunal and the parties to submit that the corporate respondent is a municipally-owned, full service telephone company providing residential and business telephone service, internet service and cellular service in the City of Dryden and Northwest Ontario and, as it is involved in telecommunications, it falls under federal, rather than provincial jurisdiction.

4The Union submits that the applicant was a member of the Union and that the Union and the respondent are party to a collective agreement. The Union submits that its certification as the bargaining agent was issued by the Canada Labour Relations Board (“CLRB”) and all of its labour relations are federally regulated. A copy of the certification issued by the CLRB was provided. As a consequence, the Union submits that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the Application and that any application should properly be filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“CHRC”).

5On January 13, 2012 the respondents filed their Response. They submit that the applicant was a member of the Union and worked for the corporate respondent which is governed by federal legislation. They agree with the Union’s submissions and submit that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter and that any application made by the applicant should be properly filed with the CHRC. The respondents provided a copy of the applicant’s job description.

6On January 16, 2012 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and directed her to respond by January 30, 2012 to the respondents’ request to dismiss on the basis that the issues in dispute are within exclusive federal jurisdiction. The Tribunal has not received submissions from the applicant as of this deadline.

7The applicant has not challenged any of the facts relied upon by the respondents in making their jurisdictional argument. Accordingly, those facts as alleged by the respondents are unchallenged and for the purposes of this Decision I accept them. As such, I find that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

8The Application is dismissed.